{"id":130890,"date":"2026-10-28T11:08:37","date_gmt":"2026-10-28T05:38:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/?p=130890"},"modified":"2026-10-28T11:09:37","modified_gmt":"2026-10-28T05:39:37","slug":"why-india-needs-sentencing-reform","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/why-india-needs-sentencing-reform\/","title":{"rendered":"Indian Sentencing Council: Why India Needs Sentencing Reform"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2><b>Indian Sentencing Council Latest News<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In India, two people convicted of the same crime can receive vastly different sentences \u2014 and the difference often depends less on the law than on which judge heard the case.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Sentencing is where the State converts prescriptive ranges (like \u201cup to ten years\u201d) into actual punishment, yet this crucial decision is left almost entirely to individual judicial discretion, with no structured guidelines on what counts as a serious aggravating factor or genuine mitigation.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>The Problem: Unequal Sentences, Unequal Justice<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Statutes typically set only maximum (and sometimes minimum) sentences \u2014 with no checklist for weighing aggravating\/mitigating factors, prior conduct, or remorse.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Analysts contend that the courts have reduced sentences based on legally irrelevant, retrograde factors \u2014 like a complainant\u2019s supposed \u201cchastity\u201d or her subsequent marriage \u2014 while ignoring psychological harm or breach of trust.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This isn\u2019t limited to sexual offences \u2014 it\u2019s a <\/span><b>deep-seated architectural problem<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> in criminal justice.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Constitutional Stakes<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">: Articles 14 and 21 prohibit arbitrary State action and demand fair, just, reasonable procedures whenever liberty is restricted.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">When similarly placed offenders get wildly different sentences \u2014 say, because one judge treats poverty as mitigating and another doesn\u2019t \u2014 this is hard to reconcile with equality before the law.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Judicial and Legislative Acknowledgment<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Supreme Court, Sunita Devi vs State of Bihar<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> (2024): Held that \u201c<\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">sentencing shall not be a mere lottery<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u201d and directed the Centre to examine a national sentencing policy, potentially via a <\/span><b>Sentencing Commission<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Centre has tasked the Law Commission of India with examining the issue; recommendations are expected soon.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Notably, the Law Commission first flagged this concern over 50 years ago in its 47th Report (1969) \u2014 yet Parliament has never designed a coherent framework. Framing sentencing policy is a legislative task, with implementation falling to the executive.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Existing Alternatives Go Underused<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">India already has <\/span><b>statutory alternatives<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> to custody:\u00a0<\/span>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><b>Sections 401 and 402, BNSS<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita).<\/span>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"3\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Section 401 (earlier Sections 360 of CrPC): Order to Release on Probation of Good Conduct or After Admonition<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"3\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Section 402 (earlier Sections 361 of CrPC): <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Special Reasons to be Recorded in Certain Cases<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><b>Sections 3, 4, and 6, Probation of Offenders Act, 1958<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> \u2014 requiring courts to consider probation in eligible cases.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Problem: No general framework explains how to balance these alternatives against competing sentencing aims \u2014 deterrence, reformation, rehabilitation.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Soman vs State of Kerala (2012):<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> The Supreme Court recognised these competing principles but noted sentencing remains one of the weakest parts of criminal justice administration.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Consequently, appellate courts are repeatedly tasked with correcting harsh or lenient sentences case-by-case, without a common yardstick \u2014 consuming significant judicial time.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Section 258(2), BNSS<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">: Requires a Sessions Judge to hear the convicted person separately on sentence \u2014 an opportunity to gather material on mitigating\/aggravating circumstances that currently lacks structured guidance.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>The English Model: Structuring Discretion, Not Eliminating It<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">England and Wales created a Sentencing Council under the Coroners and Justice Act, 2009, backed by a consolidated Sentencing Code.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Step-by-Step Method<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u00a0<\/span>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Classify the offence by culpability (blameworthiness) and harm caused.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Each culpability-harm combination gets a starting point and category range (a sentencing band).<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Judges then adjust for aggravating\/mitigating factors, guilty-plea reductions, multiple offences, and ancillary orders.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The goal isn\u2019t identical punishments for superficially similar crimes \u2014 it\u2019s uniform principles that structure (not replace) judicial discretion.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>What an Indian Sentencing Council Could Do<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">A Council created by Act of Parliament could perform three core functions:<\/span>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Develop offence-specific guidelines using a three-stage framework:\u00a0<\/span>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"3\"><b>Assess seriousness<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> via culpability and harm (planning, violence, weapon use, victim vulnerability, demonstrable harm).<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"3\"><b>Set an indicative starting point<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> and range within the statutory envelope.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"3\"><b>Individualise and justify<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> the sentence using recognised purposes like rehabilitation.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Build a <\/span><b>national sentencing database<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, using the National Judicial Data Grid\u2019s infrastructure \u2014 anonymised data on offence type, harm\/culpability factors, starting points, adjustments, and final sentences \u2014 enabling Parliament, courts, and the public to identify disparities.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Issue guidelines as delegated legislation, placed before Parliament for approval \u2014 advisory but strongly presumptive.\u00a0<\/span>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"3\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Courts must consider them in every case and give reasons when departing, preserving judicial independence while making discretion accountable.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Potential Pitfalls<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Penal populism (especially around sexual offences) could push guidelines toward ever-longer sentences without evidence of deterrence.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Excessive centralisation risks ignoring state-level differences in court capacity and prison conditions \u2014 significant since prisons fall under the State List while criminal law is in the Concurrent List.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Mechanical compliance risk: Judges might simply \u201ctick guideline checklists\u201d without genuinely changing their reasoning.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">These risks can only be managed if the Council is independent and empirically grounded.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Conclusion<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">India\u2019s criminal justice debate has long focused on its \u201cfront end\u201d \u2014 policing, speedy trials, victims\u2019 rights \u2014 while neglecting the equally critical \u201cback end\u201d question: once convicted, how should punishment actually be decided?\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">As the Supreme Court itself has warned, sentencing today functions as a lottery, shaped more by judicial temperament than by principled, consistent reasoning.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">A Sentencing Council \u2014 modelled on England\u2019s approach but adapted for India\u2019s federal and evidentiary realities \u2014 offers a path to structure discretion without eliminating it, ensuring accountability without compromising judicial independence.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The real test will be whether such a body, once recommended, finally receives the legislative attention that successive Law Commissions have sought for over five decades.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><b>Source:<\/b> <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/indianexpress.com\/article\/explained\/explained-law\/india-sentencing-policy-national-sentencing-council-explained-10933467\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">IE<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>An Indian Sentencing Council could reduce sentencing disparities, improve consistency in criminal justice and guide judges while preserving judicial independence.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":18,"featured_media":130897,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[11185,60,22,59],"class_list":["post-130890","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-upsc-mains-current-affairs","tag-indian-sentencing-council","tag-mains-articles","tag-upsc-current-affairs","tag-upsc-mains-current-affairs","no-featured-image-padding"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130890","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/18"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=130890"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130890\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":130907,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130890\/revisions\/130907"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/130897"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=130890"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=130890"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=130890"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}